Independent Hydrino Replication

  • Hi all,


    I recently hired a commercial lab to replicate the FeBr2 + Cu(OH)2 Differential Scanning Calorimeter experiment that Mills and his validators have reported. It works. I'm shopping a paper around to journals, but you can see a preprint along with my spreadsheet calculations and the report from the lab here. Based on the assumed reactions that Mills et al have used, the signal was 100% excess energy compared to conventional chemistry. This despite an error I made: the FeBr2 was ordered as beads not powder, so the mixing was poor. I expect repeating this with powder for both reagents will show even more excess energy.


    The lab did all handling of materials from ordering, preparing the sample, running the instruments, and producing a final report from which I plugged numbers into my spreadsheet. Those who have accused Dr. Mills of fraud are going to have to explain why this commercial lab, likely never having heard of GUTCP/Mills/hydrino (they didn't hear it from me), is in on the conspiracy.


    Dave

  • So, what you did was stuffing the reactants in the calorimeter and measured the output? Seems straight forward enough to replicate, but a more detailed protocols (detailing weights, amounts, supplier and purities of reactants, etc.) is in order.


    Congrats for you initiative are in order.

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

  • Interesting stuff, glad to read and would like to see more such replications and open analysing of power production hydrogen experiments.

  • If this was indeed a hydrino formation reaction, then why was the energy released as heat rather than the expected UV radiation Mill's reports for most other hydrino reactions? It's always possible other nuclear fusion reactions were responsible for the excess heat released in the presence of iron oxides formed resulting in ultra dense hydrogen and LENR. See what is in the reactant products!

    :)

  • dselke , not meaning to be hostile or attacking your work, I am also thinking what exactly is being claimed as the relationship of this experiment to hydrinos.

    The “excess heat” claim is based upon a theoretical estimation of maximum expected chemical energy release.


    Now let’s say the excess heat is proven beyond any reasonable doubt (we have yet to hear from our resident skeptics all the ways in which the experiment is incorrect Regards to calorimetry), then this excess heat can be proof of LENR, UDH or even Magnehydrogen formation. How do you tell is hydrinos?


    In other words, can you provide the Mills model based equation that predicts this excess heat over expected chemical reaction, in order to claim the experiment proves the equation valid?

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

  • dselke , not meaning to be hostile or attacking your work, I am also thinking what exactly is being claimed as the relationship of this experiment to hydrinos.

    The “excess heat” claim is based upon a theoretical estimation of maximum expected chemical energy release.


    Now let’s say the excess heat is proven beyond any reasonable doubt (we have yet to hear from our resident skeptics all the ways in which the experiment is incorrect Regards to calorimetry), then this excess heat can be proof of LENR, UDH or even Magnehydrogen formation. How do you tell is hydrinos?


    In other words, can you provide the Mills model based equation that predicts this excess heat over expected chemical reaction, in order to claim the experiment proves the equation valid?

    Best to wait for the reaction product analyses. It is hard to exclude excess heat over chemical heat when the chemical product is unknown/unverified.

  • dselke , not meaning to be hostile or attacking your work, I am also thinking what exactly is being claimed as the relationship of this experiment to hydrinos.

    The “excess heat” claim is based upon a theoretical estimation of maximum expected chemical energy release.


    Now let’s say the excess heat is proven beyond any reasonable doubt (we have yet to hear from our resident skeptics all the ways in which the experiment is incorrect Regards to calorimetry), then this excess heat can be proof of LENR, UDH or even Magnehydrogen formation. How do you tell is hydrinos?


    In other words, can you provide the Mills model based equation that predicts this excess heat over expected chemical reaction, in order to claim the experiment proves the equation valid?


    One can't predict the actual excess heat because one doesn't know how much of the hydrogen was converted to hydrino. But one can calculate the maximum possible excess heat energy by assuming all H was converted to hydrino, and the hydrino was of the H(1/4) variety. To get this answer in Joules,


    1) Find out the number of moles of H in the reaction

    2) Multiply this number by 204 eV * (1.602E-19) Joules/eV


    PS

    204 eV is derived by Mills' formula (4^2 - 1^2)*13.6 eV

  • dselke , not meaning to be hostile or attacking your work, I am also thinking what exactly is being claimed as the relationship of this experiment to hydrinos.

    The “excess heat” claim is based upon a theoretical estimation of maximum expected chemical energy release.


    Now let’s say the excess heat is proven beyond any reasonable doubt (we have yet to hear from our resident skeptics all the ways in which the experiment is incorrect Regards to calorimetry), then this excess heat can be proof of LENR, UDH or even Magnehydrogen formation. How do you tell is hydrinos?


    In other words, can you provide the Mills model based equation that predicts this excess heat over expected chemical reaction, in order to claim the experiment proves the equation valid?

    I don't "know" it's hydrinos. But the excess heat is a prediction of the hydrino theory (as well, maybe, as other theories) - but not of conventional theory. In the paper I say that the next step is to go looking for hydrinos in the product using the many methods that Brilliant Light has published.

  • If you have any spare reactant chemicals I know somebody with a DSC and analysis kit who MIGHT be persuaded to run this again.

    I don't have any reactants because I had the lab order them. I wanted to protect the chain of custody of the samples from me, who might be seen as an interested party by outsiders. You should persuade this person to run the experiment and commit to publishing it beforehand :) The real cost isn't the reactants but the lab time and gold DSC pans. I think one of the replications at least was done using aluminum pans, which takes about $600 off the cost. And if the lab time is free for your friend... well, he might get it done for a couple hundred bucks.

  • dselke - Sadly that wouldn't help - lab time is not the problem and nor is the equipment. But this is a bureaucracy and there would be no chance of a budget for chemicals not aligned with an official project.

    Interesting. I can order chemicals but I can't have them delivered to me because I only have a residential address. If you're serious about a further replication, contact me at dselke at hotmail dot com and let me know the address and attention I should have the materials delivered to. I'll need to know how much is needed; I have heard that for composition analysis more is better, so you use a different batch than you put in your DSC. For the DSC itself I use 4.7 mg Cu(OH)2 and 11.8 mg FeBr2, following one of Dr. Mills' validators.

  • If this was indeed a hydrino formation reaction, then why was the energy released as heat rather than the expected UV radiation Mill's reports for most other hydrino reactions? It's always possible other nuclear fusion reactions were responsible for the excess heat released in the presence of iron oxides formed resulting in ultra dense hydrogen and LENR. See what is in the reactant products!

    :)

    You're right that the reaction products will clarify much. I bet the mixture is opaque to UV and the DSC pan and the DSC itself were most certainly opaque to UV. So the light could have been there, just not observed because of its surroundings. At this point it's very possible that another theory could explain the result, but Dr. Mills' theory is the one I know most about at this time, and I am unwilling to give up his classical approach at this time to go back to alive and dead cats and seas of quarks. But if you prefer another theory, let's explore!